Bishop Hill Scotland inches towards a shale industry
Aug 4, 2014 Energy: gas A couple of news snippets from north of the border this morning suggest that Scotland is inching its way towards exploiting its shale gas assets. First up is petrochemicals giant Ineos, best known as operator of the Grangemouth refinery, which has announced that it is going to get into the shale gas industry itself, saying that it is likely to apply for exploration licences in the near future.
Ineos, which has a registered office in Hampshire but its headquarters in Switzerland, needs gas as fuel for its chemical production plants at Grangemouth and Runcorn in Cheshire, and Crotty expressed frustration at the slow place of UK shale development. He feels the industry is held back by a lack of clear communication and leadership.
I've heard the performance of the management of UK unconventionals criticised before. I certainly think they could deal with their green tormentors in a much more robust fashion. But I think it's a bit unfair to say that this is what is holding the industry back. Surely it's the regulatory and political environment that is the problem.
At the same time, the Scottish Government has released the results of an inquiry into the safety of unconventional gas extraction north of the border and has, like everyone else who has looked at such questions, concluded that it should be fine.
Reader Comments (10)
SNP : aye..., well, we were behind this all along y'know. Renewables were only a stop gap measure d'yasee... we're managing the transition between that horrible black coal and oil to wonderful clean gas.
That robust tackling of the tormentors would rely on PR goons actually having a clue and being proactive about confrontation and evidence - not something that comes naturally to folk in that milieu.
Ineos is in the process of building a gas terminal for importing gas from the USA at a price that makes the Ineos plant profitable at last. Doing their own fracking would compliment this.
Well done Ineos, Beat the Greens Go gas.
Meanwhile in Northern Ireland a fracking site worker's home is petrol bombed.
TerryS
Whatever your (misguided) view in fracking what gives anyone the right to "put a halt" to anyone's totally legal activity just because they don't like it? I'll happily defend Mr O'Cofaigh's right not to use energy created from shale gas and I might even defend his right to argue against the use of fracking as an "unconventional" means to extract it but to halt exploration completely? What gives him that right?The worrying thing about this, apart from the obvious "escalation", is the statement by this eco-pillock:
TerryS
mouldy tofu and a catapult maybe - but - petrol bombs - oh, the irony....
Mike Jackson -
Mr O'Cofaigh's presumption is central to the way these people think. I note that known "anti-fracker" folk have been harassing Israel's version of Lush in Manchester... SWP in resurgence perchance ? Is it entirely coincidental that Lush fund anti-frackers who attack one of their business competitors? ;^)
How would independence of Scotland affect things? Are they more likely to break with British energy policy and engage in fracking, or are they too left-wing to allow it?
"I think it's a bit unfair to say that this is what is holding the industry back. Surely it's the regulatory and political environment that is the problem."
More important, economics.
In North America a robust conventional gas operation is well established. The pipelines, the facilities are already in place, and in fact not fully utilized. Despite this, the liquid-rich gas is what drives "shale" gas: dry, i.e. no natural gas liquids, is worse than a poor cousin. Dry gas stays in the ground. Not enough profit to help a Company.
Brit "shale" gas is dry to low liquids, does not have the huge reservoir pressures the Americans and Canadians have and without the paid-for major infrastructure N America has (note: we in Canada have low pressure shale-gas, but that just ain't the date to take home to Mama or the Board of Directors. Good economics depend on upfront cost being low and initial high rates of production). Very high up-front costs kill economics, a comparison metric that indicates money should be spent elsewhere. And effort.
When an industry Project of apparent scope doesn't go anywhere, suspect not politics or philosophical commitment, but relative economic value. By which I mean Other Peoples' Money Being Spent Better Elsewhere. Look to windmills and solar power as examples: an apparently good idea touted by the eco-green as economically competitive, but rarely (ever?) practiced without large subsidies which, as recent lawsuits and bankruptcies show, are necessary for their survival.
@MikeN
"too left-wing to allow it"? hmmm... doesn't seem to bother the Scottish Labour Party accepting largess from people with connections to shale gas companies see last paragraph.... :-)
Having read the report, it is interesting that as usual, the negative, backward thinking brigade have established a dodgy name for this extraction process, i.e. "unconventional", which from a geological & engineering view I have no problem with. However, wouldn't it have been nicer & more positive if we referred to it as an "innovative" natural gas extraction process? From an engineering viewpoint it has been around for more than 50 years.
Alan, "unconventional" is the industry term. It is instructive how the obstructionists have seized on any term they think the public is not too familiar with in this context though, and try to own it by making negative associations.
That is what has happened with "fracking" a relatively minor part of the completion process in terms of potential for pollution (although very important for production of course).
And something that was completely uncontroversial until media started appending the word "controversial" to every mention as if it were obligatory.
I mean we have controversies about renewable energy all the time, but how often does the media ever lead with stories about "controversial" solar projects or windfarms? The "controversial" organisations Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF? None of these are any strangers to controversy.